City will not remove tree as it is not completely dead or in immediate danger of falling.

This system we have here is super-special. The government has an ability, uncannilly, to circumnavigate logic and alleviate all liability that insurance companies would accuse if such tree does fall. I say, take pictures, post, etc..., etc...

have it removed your self.

i think you should remove it for me.

Phyllis, you're better off than I. Spend those easily earned duckets of yours upgrading my landscape. It would make Kenwood a much better more pleasing to the eye community for all!

Hey Phyliss, I agree! Homeowners should take responsibility! The issue that I'm not sure is an issue since there was no picture or explanation is this: Is the tree on private or public land?
By the way, not my property. I own, pay taxes on time, upright citizen, etc..., etc...

When I bought my home in 2006 there were 3 oaks on land that was split by city and my property. I wanted the alley way cleaned up and streetlights installed. A big issue. Well I went and cut them down myself. wow than a nasty response from city. lol too late! trees down and lights were installed. I assume the city only wanted me to cut my half of the tree. I got rid of many trees due to the roots had invaded our sewer lines and neighbors as well. As a homeowner who loves cleanliness where I live play and work I step up and keep the whole alleyway {until it gets overwhelmed with trash} and perimeter of my home maintained. even a vacant lot adjacent to my property. If you can afford to own your home this day you sure can afford to upkeep it.I even volunteer to clean up the city of other folks messes, I am out everyday cleaning the same areas I have cleaned the day before. trees are a big issue. I complain once then I take care of it myself and I am disabled. this is where good friends come in handy.I too am a grand citizen. I attend all the meetings speak at council meetings when something really concerns me. so I am out there.